Dartmoor_Matt

I don't think your a commie, I just think people need to realise that the job of ANY company is to make money for its owners, in the case of the banks, the shareholders. That was is, and proably always will be their number one aim above all others. Anyway, back on topic. Science as a popularity contest. In a way, yes, it is. They need funding to carry out their work, as VP will acknowledge, this funding, by and large, comes from Government. Government has to win votes to stay as said Government, and I can see a sitation arising that when AGW becomes even more 'unpopular' with the general public, the voters, then there will be calls for the funding to be cut, or certainly a distancing of politicians from AGW science. It might not be right, but then so many things aren't.

By and large yes. The banking crisis after all started, not here, but in the US, when some shoddy lenders (now bust) lent money to some even shoddier people, who could not afford the repayments. No one over here knew who 'owned' this debt and the banks stopped lending because of this (quite a prudent thing to do) It is NOT the jobs of the banks to kick start the economy or to help out the poor. Simple. The banks that weren't efficient got taken over by the government (the biggest irony of the lot) the better banks, Barclays, HSBC and Santander didn't and continue to do well. What this has to do with the price of fish is however beyond me. But as ever, I suspect a lack of responsibility in the general population is more to blame than anything else. The banks just did what the demand wanted.

I think we can, from today, start to see which way the enquiry (so long as its not hi-jacked in a nu labore type of way) will go. But I do agree with Rob, once there is no mileage for politicians through the media they will start to drift on to new and better ways to win votes.

Indeed. Especially when cuts are going to be made everywhere, something tells me that funding for scientists who get their ideas from unfinished, un published and non peer reviewed sources are going to come underneath the foxes at this rate. The banking sector is surviving because despite the claims by some pseudo-commies, they are well run, efficient enterprises that have been around for hundreds of years. Unlike AGW. Which has been around for about 30? (as a theory)

I'm not sure I understand your question? If you hold data and someone applies to see it, you have to show it. (There are some restrictions, mostly apertaining to personal data and matters of national security) Facts are the UAE have been found to be in the wrong, and I'm pretty sure the ICO know the law. We await more news with interest...

UAE gets it in the neck for breaking the law over Freedom of Information. Again from The Times which goes on to say that the ICO decided the university failed in its duties under the act, but due to the late accusation no charges could be brought. They are appealing for a law change so that prosecutions can be brought late in the future. The unravel continues.

Another colder day than the actual temp was suggesting, (which was 4C) and a definate chill in the air from the increasingly northerly wind. I think I'm in Bath this weekend, which will just about figure if it snows down here! Although Sunday looks the best day.

Cold, dark and did I mention cold? Well if this was the mild day, god help us. Anyway, -5.9C over night, and don't I know it, playing tennis n all. Roads nice and icy this morning. Spotlight going for snow from Friday and over the weekend for Devon, so can't complain there, doubt it'll be much, but good to see none the less.

Crazy isn't it! Bit like tennis when its -4c according to the car! Damn that was cold.

Not til November! haha! Tell me about it! Now the snow has been and gone, I keep forgetting its only January! So 2-3 months before its going to be even remotely warm enough. Think we managed a weekend camping on the 2nd of April last year, and that was alright in the day (out of the wind) but the evenings... well not warm enough to stay outside... shame The sea was still cold, even with full wetsuits. But hell, that doesn't change whichever month we are in.

I've not seen any forecasts today either, but the radio this morning was going for snow showers over the weekend for Devon. I did have an issue flying into Bangkok from Sydney, coming in between two towering thunder storms where they refused to serve drinks after the meal! I've stopped drinking in the week in preparation for my Annapurna trek. Can't see it lasting once BBQ season hits, but the will was there

The flight would be fine. Planes are quite able to take off and land on snow and ice. (As I found out to my suprise in Finland) I'm not convinced the west inland will see much snow out of this N'erly. You should take some flights over South East Asia, that'll kill or cure ya Edit: removed the n't from the are... error GFS snow depth (which I know is a little error prone itself) goes for snow no further East than Exeter in a line NW clipping SW Wales over the weekend and into next week. Devon and Cornwall does quite well.

GFS 12z pushes it a little further west again (no suprise there) but its too early to be guessing PPN amounts, best bet is to wait for the NAE.

It links to other animal behaviour, such as chimps, which in turn links to human behaviour which in turn links to economics, which is afteral a social science. I think.

Really? I'm not so sure you will find an anthropologist who agrees, but lets not go round in circles here to. The outcome is the same though, so not in the scheme of things. There is a limit to some resources, but not all, and that is quite an important point. And as above, if we are talking very long term we will eventually see mining operations that take place off this planet. Of this I am sure. Perhaps not in our lifetimes, but in 100 years or so. Growth can come from all sorts of places, resources and ideas. But I agree, in the short term the move to clampdown on emissions will have to lead to a collapse in growth of economies.

Take away the boundaries society puts on us and you will soon see humans retrogress to a mind set much like the young male chimps. Certainly in terms of behaviour. Why do you think the boundaries are there? We haven't evolved that much yet. Edit: Re the Silverbacks, just because channel 4 shows the picking the fleas of each other does in no way mean these creatures will not fight and kill to protect themselves, not so different to humans I suspect.

Agreed. However this does mean that we (as a species) will do everything to try and grow exponentially, and this will in the end of course lead us to leaving this planet. Depends on whether this topic is about the short to medium term or long term. Long term growth will continue, as it always has, perhaps through different means, but it will grow.

I can't see inland areas getting much snow from a northerly, Scotland aside, east coast and west coast will get some showers. Assuming it doesn't all get shunted east and the big let down ensues. Besides, planes take off in all sorts of weather these days. (Including some instances when they probably shouldn't) Temp last night was -3.9C which led to a nice sheet of ice on the road where there is water run-off from the fields. Currently -0.9C. Winter is back! Even the 'mild' day tomorrow is only looking to be 6-7C max in the SW

Yeah, was very dark and cold in Exeter today to. Showing -0.9C at the moment with DP -2C

We are all clever enough to cover two topics at once in here I think. But if the science said that the glaciers would melt by 2035 in the Himalaya and they aren't, then it is wrong, but thats besides the point. Receiving benefits from false claims is fraud, plain and simple. Thats why you sign to say that everything you say is true. OK. Here is some simple maths for you. If there are 100 people in 1256AD and a typhoon comes, these 100 people live in 30 houses, and 15 of these houses are destroyed, costing 15US$. Fast forward to 2010. 1,000,000 people live in the same place in 300,000 houses and 150,000 of these houses are destroyed costing 150,000US$. It is blatantly obvious that the only reason for the increase in the cost is the increase in the number of houses destroyed, but the ratios are exactly the same! Edit: and before anyone says anthing, I know full well there was no US dollar in 1256. It was a hypothetical example.

Eh? That was last week, catch up my friend. This week its about the cost of natural disasters and a supposed increase being down to Climate Change (IPCC) later found out to not be. (everyone with half a braincell and an ounce of commonsense) TWS - where there is a will there is a way. I wager a few hundred billion pounds on new energy rather than some banker would come up with one or two ideas. Re the other fiction, a small change in the us of words would render it fact. Oh and if true this does consitute fraud. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

OK, heres a little lesson in the modern world for you Dev. There are more of us. In poor nations people tend to live near the sea as it provides ample food for them to eat and make a living from, they build more houses. There is a typhoon, these houses get destroyed. Now, is the typhoon caused by the global warming or weather? Its weather, you keep telling us so. So that means the increase in houses destroyed must be because there was MORE houses TO destroy. Its really rather simple. No amount of wailing about things is going to change that, infact the damn report the IPCC used said the same thing! They just ignored it.

Nope, just that global warming isn't the cause of natural disasters. Fact. If politicians really wanted to stop climate change, they would. Fact. The world might be warming, but there is a long way to go to prove that we are at all responsible for it. Fact.

Funding comes, and funding goes. As for the 'PR' from a 'Right Wing newspaper' it does say that the vice chairman of the IPCC is stating there will be a review of the section and possible removal. And, key to the whole thing I think is this quote, The report from Muir indeed included the caveat that ANY increase could easily be explained by the increased hurricane seasons 2004/05. From 1950-2005 there was NO increase but from 1970-2005 there was a 2% increase. Now who cherry picks?

I think you will find the support for IPCC reports slowly ebbing as new revelations come out over the coming weeks. Politicians are being made to look stupid, and we know they don't like that. So what happens next is usually the sound of the death knell.